[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ^^^ here is a no-op mail about: a so-called NO-OP vote ... […]

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:24:34PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Just for information.
> >
> > This is a no-op vote, since we either reafirm the current status quo
> > (already re-afirmed previous to the sarge release), or further
> > discuss the issue, but in all cases, nothing will prevent further
> > discussion at a later time, and indeed our DPL has already said he
> > intent to trigger further discussion about these issues around the
> > edinbourg debconf time.
> yay yay yay yay. that's your what, 100th 110th mail on the subject ?

Thanks very much, and also thanks to all those french guys who have nothing
else to do with their time than bashing folk on irc, while proposing GRs to
recall the DPL and other such nonsense.

> > So, i am not going to vote on this one.
> very clever, if you're against sth, you have to vote against, else 
> abstention goes to the wining side.

so what ? you don't like Don's proposal, then you should have proposed an
amendment to say something else. Voting further discussion doesn't mean voting
for the opposite of don's amendment, it just means that you believe it should
be further discussed, for whatever reason, either because you don't like the
syntax, there is a typo in it you want corrected, you think there should be
another amendment represeting the opposite view, or you consulted your
astronomer and he said you it is not an auspisious day for holding a vote.

A full no-op, so i am not going to vote on it. (or maybe i should, and vote
both FD and the proposal equally ?).


Sven Luther

Reply to: